Question: Energy Independence. Is it a myth foisted upon the public?

[Hubbs]

Ethanol

Shocking isn't it, considering:

"Ethanol was never a viable alternative. It was just something that was thrown out there to placate the environmental crowd, but as deejaydana pointed out, it has it's own harmful environmental side effects."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

"Brazil is the world's second largest producer of ethanol and the world's largest exporter. Together, Brazil and the United States lead the industrial world in global ethanol production, accounting together for 70% of the world's production;[1] and nearly 90% of ethanol used for fuel. [2] In 2006 Brazil produced 16.3 billion litres (4.3 billion U.S. liquid gallons),[3] which represents 33.3% of the world's total ethanol production and 42% of the world's ethanol used as fuel.[2]

Brazil is considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy and the biofuel industry leader"

Actually, Brazil's solution has intrigued me for a while now. They make their ethanol out of sugar cane. Is that a more viable solution than corn-base ethanol?

[twa]

Actually, Brazil's solution has intrigued me for a while now. They make their ethanol out of sugar cane. Is that a more viable solution than corn-base ethanol?

Yes cane produces more,the switchgrass and other options that grow on less fertile land are the best option though...IF we get the kinks out.

The celluostic methods using what is essentially waste vegetation(or algae) could be profitable w/o crimping food supply.

[boofMcboof]

Using our precious topsoil for fuel has to be one of the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

[twa]

Using our precious topsoil for fuel has to be one of the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

Next to paying to clean up natural oil seeps because you oppose drilling oil wells of course:D

[PeterMP]

Yes cane produces more,the switchgrass and other options that grow on less fertile land are the best option though...IF we get the kinks out.

The celluostic methods using what is essentially waste vegetation(or algae) could be profitable w/o crimping food supply.

We HAVE the kinks out. I posted the PNAS paper earlier in this thread showing it was an energy effecient process. The issue now is investment.

What are gas prices going to do in the next 1-15 years? Are they going to be $1.10 in Sept. or $3.10?

The issue with respect to ethanol going forward is it going to simply be over-run by hydrogen.

I invest in building an ethanol refinery, do I have 1, 5, 10, or 50 years to pay back the investment?

The ability of certain companies/countries/organizations to manipulate gas/oil prices make those things unknowable. Couple that with the fact that any given industry on the years time scale might be eclipsed by any other is making investment necessary slow.

[boofMcboof]

Next to paying to clean up natural oil seeps because you oppose drilling oil wells of course:D

Well, I'm a nuclear guy myself. I have read that algae and switchgrass have a lot of potential without killing our arable land, maybe even helping it. I'll believe it when I see it.

[PeterMP]

Actually, Brazil's solution has intrigued me for a while now. They make their ethanol out of sugar cane. Is that a more viable solution than corn-base ethanol?

It is more viable. What you really see advancing in this country though isn't corn based ethanol. The biggest thing right now is the cellolosic part of the sugar cane (the part not used to make sugar) in the south, which is more effecient than the other parts of the corn plant and even corn because the rest of the sugar plant is still being used to make sugar so once you've built the ethanol refinery you are almost getting something for nothing (the sugar is going to be planted and cared for anyway just for the sugar).

The next step will be using the non-food part of the corn to make ethanol and things like switchgrass, which twa mentioned.

[PeterMP]

Well, I'm a nuclear guy myself. I have read that algae and switchgrass have a lot of potential without killing our arable land, maybe even helping it. I'll believe it when I see it.

Please, read the thread.

[PeterMP]

This is spot on. Energy Independence is really a myth. That doesn't mean we cannot or should not pursure developing what we have on our own soil (including newer sources). The fact of the matter is (for good or ill) that we will continue to use crude for decades to come. Natural gas will likely take it's place for purely economical reasons. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, the market is indifferent anyway.

The market doesn't work for energy for two reasons:

1. OPEC is a trust that operates via collulsion, which anybody will tell you prevents a free market from working.

2. This might be a little more controversial, but I've become convinced that a few big companies dominanting the market can act in the same manner even if there isn't out-and-out collusion. In most cases, they are looking at the same data and applying the same principles, the net effect is they act in the same manner. Even if they aren't and aren't copperating in a way that you would consider collusion or that is really illegal the effect is the same. If all of the oil companies response when they see increased investment going into alternative energy infrastructure/research is to cut prices to not incentivize investment (which is the completely reasonable thing to do), if they are actually communicating that goal and action with one another is irrelevant with respect to the market and its ability to control prices.

[twa]

Which brings me back to the cost efficiency(not the energy gain efficiency you referenced)

There are numerous countries that can produce oil/NG at prices below what our current alt energy can(aside from nuclear)

Till that changes,nothing changes

They did manage to make corn ethanol cost efficient by requiring it's use,but throwing money away is not a good model.

[boofMcboof]

Please, read the thread.

And your point? If you're talking about corn based ethanol, it's one of the most nutrient demanding crops. If there isn't any crop rotation, the topsoil will have zero chance to recover.

If corn ethanol becomes an dependent source of fuel, a prolonged drought will absolutely destroy this country's economy. Not to mention that more farmers will be switching over to corn at the expense of other crops narrowing our food supply and nutrition. Corn itself isn't very dense in nutrients for the body.

I find it hard to believe nuclear power is completely obsolete. At least it can be a bridge towards other kinds of fusion reactors, possibly plasma.

[Larry]

And your point? If you're talking about corn based ethanol, it's one of the most nutrient demanding crops. If there isn't any crop rotation, the topsoil will have zero chance to recover.

If corn ethanol becomes an dependent source of fuel, a prolonged drought will absolutely destroy this country's economy. Not to mention that more farmers will be switching over to corn at the expense of other crops narrowing our food supply and nutrition. Corn itself isn't very dense in nutrients for the body.

:secret:He wasn't talking about corn based ethanol.

As you would have known if you'd . . . . read the thread.

[China]

Not really. The technology for producting ethanol or hydrogen via engineered photosynthetic organisms is much newer and has much more up side as a result. They certainly don't have issues with respect to limits on ability to build.

Well some are finding that you may not even have to engineer any organisms. Simply grow duckweed on pig waste and you're in business. It has the added advantage of remediating a large waste stream from industrial pork production.

Tiny Flower Turns Pig Poop into Fuel

The tiniest flowering plant could prove well-suited to two very big jobs: cleaning industrial animal pollution and providing clean biofuel.

Able to thrive on nutrients in animal waste, duckweed produces far more starch per acre than corn, say researchers. It could be an alternative to corn-based ethanol biofuel, which is disfavored by environmentalists because of waste generated in farming it.

"Based on our laboratory studies, we can produce five to six times more starch per unit of footage," said Jay Cheng, a biological engineer at North Carolina State University.

[twa]

Don't see why that would not work with human sewage as well China,but I wonder how much acreage it would require to produce substantial quantities?

I'm sure the NIMBY"s wouldn't object;)

[Larry]

We HAVE the kinks out. I posted the PNAS paper earlier in this thread showing it was an energy effecient process. The issue now is investment.

What are gas prices going to do in the next 1-15 years? Are they going to be $1.10 in Sept. or $3.10?

The issue with respect to ethanol going forward is it going to simply be over-run by hydrogen.

I invest in building an ethanol refinery, do I have 1, 5, 10, or 50 years to pay back the investment?

The ability of certain companies/countries/organizations to manipulate gas/oil prices make those things unknowable. Couple that with the fact that any given industry on the years time scale might be eclipsed by any other is making investment necessary slow.

Your post is reminding me of an editorial I read years ago. The context was a bit different (the editorial was talking about how to encourage private companies to get into the business of providing commercial space services), but it could be applicable, anyway.

The editorial pointed out that when aviation was a radical new business, the US did something which historians credit as being hugely beneficial to an industry which many people weren't sure would ever be an industry.

The government didn't outright subsidize the aviation industry. But what they did do was to pass a law stating that if any company that could build an airplane that met certain minimum specifications for payload and range, then the government would guarantee that company a certain number of flights, at a certain price, even if somebody else's airplane was better or cheaper.

In short, the government took the uncertainty out of the "but will we have any customers?" part of the entrepreneur's gamble.

Now, it seems to me that, if your assertion that these technologies are commercially viable and ready to roll right now, but they're scared to sink the millions into building plants because of fear that they'll be undercut, then the government could solve that problem right now, simply by guaranteeing that, say, any plant that uses Hydrogen or Ethanol to produce electricity will be guaranteed to sell electricity, at umpty-ump cents per KWh, for umpty-ump KWh/year, for 20 years, even if somebody else comes up with a way to sell electricity cheaper.

(I specify that the energy produced be electrical energy because we already have a distribution network in place for electrical energy. Both Hydrogen and Ethanol, as motor fuels, are useless without spending all the huge expenses building vehicles and a distribution network. IMO, if your Hydrogen or Ethanol can run a power plant, then we'll look at the costs figures and decide if we want to sink the money into building all of the gas stations and cars that would be needed to use it as a motor fuel.)

A program like that costs the government nothing until somebody actually builds a working plant. And when the plant's working, then all the government pays is the difference between whatever price they guaranteed and whatever the current market price for electricity. (And the government doesn't even pay that money up front, but rather, over the next 20 years.)

If the only reason we aren't using this technology right now is market uncertainty, (and I don't believe it is. It sounds more, to me, like what you're describing is that there's some laboratory experiments that look like the technology might work in a real plant), then have the government take the uncertainty out of it.

[PeterMP]

Which brings me back to the cost efficiency(not the energy gain efficiency you referenced)

There are numerous countries that can produce oil/NG at prices below what our current alt energy can(aside from nuclear)

Till that changes,nothing changes

They did manage to make corn ethanol cost efficient by requiring it's use,but throwing money away is not a good model.

That's true, but then when they decide every decade or so that they want MORE for their oil and/or natural gas than we could get for alternative energy and the short term damage to our economy is irrelevant to them there's not much you can do except complain.

Which is exactly where we are. Now, if you are happy with the status quo we've had over the last few decades then I guess that's good for you.

Most people don't seem to be.

Oh and I actually don't think you need to include (aside from nuclear) if you take into account storage and transport of nuclear waste. Building a nuclear plant is heavily aided because of the assistance from the government with those things and state allowed electric company monopolies, which means they have a good idea what they are going to get for electricity long-term. But hey those things are okay for some reason, but doing anything to help something that might more directly compete with oil/gas is a ****ization of the free market economy and the worse idea ever.

[PeterMP]

If the only reason we aren't using this technology right now is market uncertainty, (and I don't believe it is. It sounds more, to me, like what you're describing is that there's some laboratory experiments that look like the technology might work in a real plant), then have the government take the uncertainty out of it.

For hydrogen small scale (in labs), it works so there, there MIGHT be scale up options, but you still need the money to scale up to try.

For ethanol based on real crops in real fields and real pretty large scale refineries it is cost effective. I'm not sure what the situation would be with respect to going to electricity vs. cars though. As I'm sure you realize, you lose a level of energy in terms in going to electricity.

Is converting gas to electricity and then using the electricity cost effective?

I don't know. It might not be for ethanol either.

[Larry]

For hydrogen small scale (in labs), it works so there, there MIGHT be scale up options, but you still need the money to scale up to try.

For ethanol based on real crops in real fields and real pretty large scale refineries it is cost effective. I'm not sure what the situation would be with respect to going to electricity vs. cars though. As I'm sure you realize, you lose a level of energy in terms in going to electricity.

Is converting gas to electricity and then using the electricity cost effective?

I don't know. It might not be for ethanol either.

I specified electricity because to use Ethanol/Hydrogen/Dilithium as a motor fuel, you not only need the fuel, but you need cars to burn it, and a network of gas stations to service those cars. (Although I suppose you could test things by, say, equipping a city bus fleet to run on whatever it is.)

As a practical matter, the country really can only run on very few motor fuels, because it's just to expensive and complicated to support too many different fuels.

However, if you've got fuel, then all you need to do to turn it into electricity is to burn it, and use the heat to heat water. Once you have hot water, then the rest of your power plant is existing technology just like any coal, gas, or nuclear power plant. And once your electricity reaches The Grid, then The Grid doesn't care if the Watts came from coal, nuclear, algae, or pig poop.

[twa]

Peter, I think you misinterpreted my intent...I support alt energy development(and even subsidizing it to a degree),but do not see any at the present cost efficient with oil at $40 a brl.

I endorse funding the alt energy development with new oil and gas lease sales and royalties,which to me is a win win situation IF technology can do what I (and you obviously)believe is possible.

Larry,we have a requirement here of 10% renewable electricity generation to guarantee that market share you speak of.

[PeterMP]

I specified electricity because to use Ethanol/Hydrogen/Dilithium as a motor fuel, you not only need the fuel, but you need cars to burn it, and a network of gas stations to service those cars. (Although I suppose you could test things by, say, equipping a city bus fleet to run on whatever it is.)

As a practical matter, the country really can only run on very few motor fuels, because it's just to expensive and complicated to support too many different fuels.

However, if you've got fuel, then all you need to do to turn it into electricity is to burn it, and use the heat to heat water. Once you have hot water, then the rest of your power plant is existing technology just like any coal, gas, or nuclear power plant. And once your electricity reaches The Grid, then The Grid doesn't care if the Watts came from coal, nuclear, algae, or pig poop.

I understand your point. I'm just saying that I'm not sure how much that actually does good. It might or might not actually do any good.

[Larry]

I understand your point. I'm just saying that I'm not sure how much that actually does good. It might or might not actually do any good.

It will allow XYZCorp to demonstrate that a plant of size X, can produce Y gallons of fuel per year, at a cost of Z.

[PeterMP]

It will allow XYZCorp to demonstrate that a plant of size X, can produce Y gallons of fuel per year, at a cost of Z.

It depends on where you put the price. To say that I can cost compete with gas if oil is $90.00 a barrell doesn't mean I can cost compete with means to produce electricity at anything resembling a "normal" rate for electricity. People don't use gas to make electricity at a commercial level, and I'm not sure of the cost effectiveness of doing so.

I guess you could do the math so that it worked out, but the end result might be the government WAY over paying for electricity. It seems like it might be better for the government to just promise to buy up to ssome amount of ethanol and hydrogen at some price going into the future.

[Larry]

It depends on where you put the price. To say that I can cost compete with gas if oil is $90.00 a barrell doesn't mean I can cost compete with means to produce electricity at anything resembling a "normal" rate for electricity. People don't use gas to make electricity at a commercial level, and I'm not sure of the cost effectiveness of doing so.

I guess you could do the math so that it worked out, but the end result might be the government WAY over paying for electricity. It seems like it might be better for the government to just promise to buy up to ssome amount of ethanol and hydrogen at some price going into the future.

Problem is, In order to be effective, the pilot plants (you do hope there are going to be multiple competitors, don't you) have to be producing commercially significant quantities, for a period of several years. (That's the only way to demonstrate what the upkeep costs are for the plant.)

If your plant's production is measured in thousands of barrels a year, you haven't proven your point. The US, I believe, measures it's oil consumption in Billions of barrels a day.

What's the government going to do? Promise to buy a million pounds of Hydrogen, (per plant, from multiple plants) every year, for the next 20 years? With no clear market for what they're going to do with the Hydrogen they're buying?

It's guaranteed that there will be a market for 50 KW of electricity, every year, for the next 20 years. Maybe at a slightly lower price than the guaranteed floor, but the demand will be there.

(I suppose that the case could be made that there's a guaranteed demand for Ethanol, because of the government's mandate that it be used as a fuel additive.)

[PeterMP]

Problem is, In order to be effective, the pilot plants (you do hope there are going to be multiple competitors, don't you) have to be producing commercially significant quantities, for a period of several years. (That's the only way to demonstrate what the upkeep costs are for the plant.)

If your plant's production is measured in thousands of barrels a year, you haven't proven your point. The US, I believe, measures it's oil consumption in Billions of barrels a day.

What's the government going to do? Promise to buy a million pounds of Hydrogen, (per plant, from multiple plants) every year, for the next 20 years? With no clear market for what they're going to do with the Hydrogen they're buying?

It's guaranteed that there will be a market for 50 KW of electricity, every year, for the next 20 years. Maybe at a slightly lower price than the guaranteed floor, but the demand will be there.

(I suppose that the case could be made that there's a guaranteed demand for Ethanol, because of the government's mandate that it be used as a fuel additive.)

Well, ethanol and hydrogen have uses beyond energy (and drinking for ethanol). Also my understanding is currently we have the ability to produce more electricity than we need in most places at most times (it isn't like we have regular brown or black outs). I believe it has been stated that nuclear power plants are "turned down" at night because there is excess electric production so again, I'm really not sure what the difference it is. The ethanol and hydrogen can at least be stored and long term could become part of a new federal energy (vs. just oil) reserve.

I'm not really for either approach. To me, I'd tax gas more, but not directly at the pump, but on the basis of the cost of the oil used to produce the gas. Set some value (~$85 a barell) as being the $0 tax price for oil. The lower the price of a barell of oil in the open market (the amount you paid is irrelevant) the more tax on the gas.

I think this might actually create an artificial increase of oil on the world market, which essentially might encourage/force every country to look for alternatives (and if they end up using an American companies technology all the better).

Certainly, it would artifically inflate the price of gas during times when oil is cheap and give alternative energy companies a better understanding of where they are going to stand with respect to the price of gas longterm.

[twa]

The word I'm hearing is the hydrogen fuel cell project has been defunded

Automotive News

WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush’s $1.2 billion plan to develop cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells was eliminated by President Barack Obama last week, saving $100 million a year.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the government prefers to target more immediate energy-saving solutions.

“The probability of deploying hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in the next 10 to 20 years is low,” Energy Department spokesman Tom Welch said in an interview.